Congressman Boucher’s eminently reasonable idea

7 Responses to Congressman Boucher’s eminently reasonable idea

1. N. Pilon says:

   May 11, 2004 at 8:25 am

   The amount of FUD being pumped out by the content cartels about this bill is amazing. (See recent Slashdot discussions for some examples, including a Photographer’s Assocation, which claims that if the bill is defeated, photographers will no longer be able to LEGALLY control reproduction of digital copies of their works!) Hopefully, Prof. Lessig will be able to (as usual) provide a calm voice of reason.

   Log in to Reply
2. James Day says:

   May 11, 2004 at 1:40 pm

   I’m uncomfortable with page 3’s ‘Congress�s objective must be to guarantee that the regulation of creative work continues to serve the single constitutional purpose of that regulation: to �promote the Progress of Science”‘, for it misses the following “and Useful Arts” and leaves room for arguments that OK, fair use for science is OK, but not for creative things. Also struck me as the sort of selective quoting I expect to see from big media companies.

   On page 16, I wonder how “No doubt some might not be protected by fair use � a user who systematically copies CDs borrowed from the library to build his own library of music, for example” and the bar on infringement action for home copying in 17 USC 1008 interact? Is fair use even necessary in that situation?

   Also on page 17, I find the argument that “The label would thus create an incentive for better crossplatform certification, which again would benefit consumers and competition generally” unconvincing. Such labels would enhance competition by letting consumers know about the limitations and avoid them, favoring instead products without the restrictive technology, perhaps competition enabled by mandatory (mechanical?) licenses. I simply avoided buying DVDs until CSS circumvention technology became widely available and let me use them freely and conveniently.

   How will you answer the “why should we help people to steal?” question? For that audience my own inclination would perhaps be to note that a federally regulated monopoly is not a natural right and maybe the better solution to theft is to work out how to deregulate the production and distribution of copyrighted works, as is being done in other areas of commerce. Widespread use of unapproved distribution methods suggests that the current disribution system is inefficient, as does the investment in lawyers and technologies which inconvenience and restrict consumers instead of improved distribution and promotion of approved channels. Interesting that online music distributors seem to be required to pay far more in royalties than the current 1.65 cents per minute statutory mechanical license for physical distribution, yet it’s fundamentally the same thing except for generally distributing versions with more restrictions than the physical work.

   A little trivia on page 7: “used bookstores and libraries” should perhaps be “used book stores and libraries”, since it’s not the bookstores which are used.

   All in all, excellent testimony, even with the comments here.:)

   Log in to Reply
3. three blind mice says:

   May 13, 2004 at 6:19 am

   fair use has never allowed users to make exact copies of original works.

   fair use should allow a user to make a less than perfect copy for their own convenience, while preserving the value of the original copyrighted work.

   for example, our cassette tape copy of king crimson’s “discipline” provides convenience, but it does not decrease the value to us of having the original CD. the sound quality of the analog tape is good enough for the car, but does not compare to the cripsness of the CD on our home stereo.

   similarly our VCR copy of reservoir dogs does not diminish the value of the original DVD. the analog copy is good enough for our PAL TV, but does not compare to the sharpness of the DVD on our HDTV.

   similarly, our pdf version of Free Culture does not diminish the value of the original bound copy.

   the ability to make an exact digital copy – which is what fair use advocates claim as their right – coupled with the massive distribution enabled by the Interent – completely destroys the value of the original version and upsets the careful balance of fair use.

   the DMCA in large part simply recreates the sensible balance which existed between vinyl albums and tape copies.

   fair use maximalists seek to destroy this balance and make us mice wonder of the goal of the movement is not fair use, but free use.

   it’s not free culture, but it’s the culture of free which we oppose.

   let’s hope the US congress can see through the professor’s smoke and mirrors and reject the attempts to weaken sensible copyright law.

   Log in to Reply
4. brian thomas says:

   May 13, 2004 at 6:24 am

   These limits in the United States have historically guaranteed that the benefits of copyright regulation do
   not outweigh its costs.

   I hope this isn’t exactly what you meant…

   Log in to Reply
5. James Day says:

   May 16, 2004 at 4:32 pm

   three blind mice,

   Your CD argument is somewhat flawed, for 17 USC 1008 enables consumers to make perfect digital copies of musical works at home, for non-commercial purposes, without infringement. 17 USC 1009 permits their subsequent sale. Nor has internet file trading/swapping, given the ten percent rise in US retail sales this year compared to last. “completely destroy the value of the original version” appears not to have happened, many years after those sections became law.

   At the moment the limited music company efforts online are using clearly inferior goods at clearly excessive prices and aren’t making much use of one of the greatest values added by large media companie: marketing power. It’s unsurprising that those online efforts are less successful than they might be.

   The world isn’t ending. The world does require that companies adopt and adapt to new technology instead of trying to use copyright law to stop technological progress.

   Log in to Reply
6. Miles Jackson says:

   May 17, 2004 at 8:19 pm

   In what universe is a mp3 file “a perfect digital copy” of a CD? The analogy between mp3 files and videotapes/pdf files/analog tapes is apt: in each case, the “copy” is of substantially lower fidelity than the original source (MP3 is a lossy format).

   All that aside, James’ argument is incontrovertible: it is currently legal for people in the U. S. to make perfect digital copies of CDs that they own.

   Log in to Reply
7. James Day says:

   July 4, 2004 at 3:41 pm

   My reference to 17 USC 1009 should have been to 17 USC 109 (a). My apologies for any inconvenience caused.

   Log in to Reply